Editorial: Supreme Court sets important limits

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling Thursday saying Congress could not force groups to compromise their free speech rights in order to receive funding sets important limits on government power.

Had the ruling in this case gone the other way, it's conceivable all manner of requirements might be imposed on those seeking support in the future. We're glad the court saw the importance of drawing this line in the sand.

At issue was a 2003 law passed by Congress requiring groups working abroad to combat HIV and AIDS to adopt anti-prostitution policies. The consequences were simple: No policy, no money.

Advertisement

"This case is not about the government's ability to enlist the assistance of those with whom it already agrees," wrote Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. "It is about compelling a grant recipient to adopt a particular belief as a condition of funding."

The groups that received the money with strings attached objected, saying their First Amendment rights were being compromised.

These are groups that receive significant private funding, but also receive billions through the U.S. program, intended to fight HIV/AIDS.

The kind of work they do includes efforts to limit injection drug use in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, reduce HIV transmission from mother to child in Kenya, and promote safe-sex practices in India.

The Alliance for Open Society International and Pathfinder International, which are non-governmental organizations that received funding, sued the government.

In the opinion, supported by six justices, the court said the government may attach conditions to the way money is spent, but cannot require groups to "pledge allegiance" to the federal government's view that prostitution ought to be eradicated.

The government cannot, the court said, attempt to leverage funding to restrict speech outside the contours of the program.

It's an important distinction that protects free speech rights of organizations getting government funding.

These groups shouldn't have to give up their constitutional rights in order to get support to help people who desperately need it.